Most reliable .22 pistol?

[Zincwarrior]

Having just received my .22 Victory back from S&W for the second time to fix problems with it, I once again have been thinking, what are the most reliable moderately priced .22 semi auto pistol on the market currently? By reliable I mean a pistol that will not jam, Fail to feed, or fail to extract, if it is properly maintained and cleaned (ie cleaned and oiled after every range session)?

Ever since I shot my old Ruger Mark II into the ground (shot it so much the barrel wore out and the frame cracked), I've not found a pistol I could rely on to shoot without quite a few jams. I have had great luck with non .22 pistols, but with .22s I have an inordinate number of unreliable ones. Once the prices get reasonable again, I'd like a decently reliable pistol for the range and just to have at steel challenge type matches (as a hack, not trying to actually be extremely competitive).

[OlongJohnson]

I've had good luck with Buck Marks, although I do spend a bit of time going through each one and detailing it out mechanically before putting it into service.

A reasonable quality revolver would also probably work well, as there is a lot less to interrupt their cycling.

Note that with .22LR ammo, function depends very heavily on the quality of the ammo. With less than good quality ammo, you can expect a range of malfunctions. CCI or better ammo fixes many, many problems that are observed with .22s, although there is the occasional gun that doesn't like CCI.

[Zincwarrior]

I've had good luck with Buck Marks, although I do spend a bit of time going through each one and detailing it out mechanically before putting it into service.

A reasonable quality revolver would also probably work well, as there is a lot less to interrupt their cycling.

Note that with .22LR ammo, function depends very heavily on the quality of the ammo. With less than good quality ammo, you can expect a range of malfunctions. CCI or better ammo fixes many, many problems that are observed with .22s, although there is the occasional gun that doesn't like CCI.

What do you do to the Buckmark detail wise?

[mtnbkr]

Most of my experience has been with the Ruger MKIII series pistols (standard and 22/45). I've found them to be very reliable with virtually any ammo. My personal 22/45 very seldom bobbles and when it does it's because I need to clean it or the magazines (I often shoot it with a suppressor and it likes to be cleaned about every 500 or so rounds of garbage bulk-pack stuff). If I didn't use a can or if I cleaned it every range trip, I doubt it would have any issues until parts started wearing out.

I think a Ruger 22lr with quality ammo is probably the lowest cost entry. You could proactively replace the extractor with an aftermarket one, which is an easy and inexpensive modification. Anything else would be more to improve the trigger or ergonomics (all of which I've done as well).

Chris

[BillSWPA]

My Buck Mark has been very reliable over many thousands of rounds with a variety of bulk ammo, but it does prefer copper plated bullets. I clean it regularly and occasionally replace the recoil spring assembly, but that is all I have done with it.

My Glock 44 has also been very reliable, although with a much lower round count and only 1-2 types of ammo. The exception is chambering the first round of the magazine was not carefully loaded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duelist]

I have had very good service from my Ruger MKII, so I understand the desire for a reliable .22 to match it. What has been your experience with new Rugers? I would think that one of those equipped with a red dot would be killer for steel challenge.

My G44 seems to be a good gun. The .22 that gives me the most joy to shoot is a Kframe S&W. A Single Six is pretty good, too.

[Zincwarrior]

WE like both Rugers and Buckmarks. We have or had three Rugers. First one: 40,000 - 50,000 rounds through it before it gave up the ghost. Second: Ruger 22/45. The sight kept drifting, and it was the old style with the interesting cleaning procedure, which is what drove me to try other pistols. NOTE: since the Victory started being a major pain, I have dug this one back out. I have purchased a night fiber optic sight set and based on these comments will likely get some new springs for it and one of the adapters that let you unscrew the bolt with an Allen wrench then send it to a smith to change out everything, inspect and cleanup.

The daughter has an old style Ruger target as well.

Glock 44? This slipped my notice. Will have to look at.

Ideally I would get two or three shooting reliably and alternate.

[okie john]

In a semi-auto, I'd get a Ruger semi-auto of pretty much any vintage. We used to have them as rental guns when I worked on commercial ranges and they were tough.

In a revolver, I'd get a Ruger Single Six or S&W K-22. In those, you just have to keep the chambers and barrel root clean.


Okie John

[Half Moon]

On the cheap end, my wife has a Bersa Thunder .22 that has been very reliable with a variety of ammo (though mostly Mini-Mags to be fair). It has fairly good accuracy as well. If I remember right, additional magazines were pricier than I would have expected but can't remember the actual cost. The pistol itself was around $250 new though. I was skeptical when she brought it home but all in all, sample of one, it has done well.

Stepson and I both favor our pre- Model 17 S&W Target Masterpiece .22 revolver but not sure that qualifies into the moderately priced category.

[SecondsCount]

I'm also a Buckmark fan and believe it or not, my Kimber 22LR conversion kit that I swap with the Custom Target slide approaches 99.9% with Remington Golden and Mini Mags.

[farscott]

Since the need is two or three of them and that rules out most out-of-production pistols, Ruger Mark IV is the "easy button" answer with Standard, Mark II, and Mark III also being good choices.

My workhouse rimfire is a Ruger Standard RST-6 that was made in 1964. The original finish was worn to the metal from handling, and it was Cerakoted back in 2017. This pistol still sees about fifty rounds per week and has been totally reliable with a wide variety of ammo from 36-grain high-velocity HP to 40-grain standard velocity offerings. The only functional change I made was to add a Volquartsen extended magazine release to allow easier removal of the newer ten-round magazines.

The good news is shooter-grade samples are available as people trade them for the easier to field strip and assemble Mark IV pistols. The benefit of the Mark IV is that Volquartsen sells discarded uppers (they use the lowers for their custom offerings) dirt cheap on the clearance page of the website. For example, pencil uppers for $35 delivered to FFL and Lite uppers with sights and the optics rail in the box for $110 delivered to FFL. Bolts and other spare parts are often available on Volquartsen's eBay store at https://www.ebay.com/sch/volquartsenfirearms/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=

Hard to go wrong with the Ruger Standard/Mark pistols.

[WobblyPossum]

What do you guys know about the Taurus TX22? I haven’t seen any glaring negative reviews and it comes with a threaded barrel from the factory. I’m also in the market for a .22 pistol and have been debating between one of these and a G44.

[Clusterfrack]

"Most reliable .22LR" is like asking who is the most honest politician. If you want to shoot Steel Challenge, look at what Steel shooters use. At my club, that's a Ruger Mark 2/3/4 (standard or 22/45) with Volquartsen parts and a pack of 10+ tuned magazines. My Mark 3 has about 40k through it with no major issues.

I think the Glock 44 may be the best .22LR ever made, but I doubt it's the best choice for steel challenge. I'm especially impressed by the Glock 44 magazines. Apparently you don't need to do anything to them to make them work, and that's a huge win in my book.


Having just received my .22 Victory back from S&W for the second time to fix problems with it, I once again have been thinking, what are the most reliable moderately priced .22 semi auto pistol on the market currently? By reliable I mean a pistol that will not jam, Fail to feed, or fail to extract, if it is properly maintained and cleaned (ie cleaned and oiled after every range session)?

Ever since I shot my old Ruger Mark II into the ground (shot it so much the barrel wore out and the frame cracked), I've not found a pistol I could rely on to shoot without quite a few jams. I have had great luck with non .22 pistols, but with .22s I have an inordinate number of unreliable ones. Once the prices get reasonable again, I'd like a decently reliable pistol for the range and just to have at steel challenge type matches (as a hack, not trying to actually be extremely competitive).

Why would anyone buy a Taurus when you could buy a Glock?

What do you guys know about the Taurus TX22? I haven’t seen any glaring negative reviews and it comes with a threaded barrel from the factory. I’m also in the market for a .22 pistol and have been debating between one of these and a G44.

[gato naranja]

Based on seeing a crapload of .22 handguns that had to work for a living out here in Flyover U.S.A., my recommendations would be as follows...

Semiauto: pre-Mark IV Ruger standard or target in blue or stainless
Revolver: blued Ruger Single-Six.

I may sound like a Ruger fancat there, but I am as ambivalent about them as I am any other manufacturer.

[msstate56]

It’s not the internet popular answer- but my Glock 44 has been fantastic. The only issue I’ve had was with an old brick of Federal .22 that may have gotten wet at some point (lots of failures to fire). With known good ammo, it chugs along with whatever I put in it. It will not cycle subs reliably, but no semi auto will that isn’t tuned for them. Just load the magazines correctly (i.e. don’t just dump the rounds in the mag, but slide each one back keeping the rim in front of the rim of the bottom cartridge). I also have a threaded barrel, and it works well with a .22 can. I haven’t used it in a Steel Challenge match yet, but I have seen others use one.

Funny story at a Steel Challenge match last year, a guy in my squad had a G44. He starts at low ready, and the MD is next to me and says “what is he doing at low ready?” I said “that’s a .22.” MD says “no he’s got a Glock.” To which I reply again “yeah, but it’s a .22.” 🤣

[Zincwarrior]

It’s not the internet popular answer- but my Glock 44 has been fantastic. The only issue I’ve had was with an old brick of Federal .22 that may have gotten wet at some point (lots of failures to fire). With known good ammo, it chugs along with whatever I put in it. It will not cycle subs reliably, but no semi auto will that isn’t tuned for them. Just load the magazines correctly (i.e. don’t just dump the rounds in the mag, but slide each one back keeping the rim in front of the rim of the bottom cartridge). I also have a threaded barrel, and it works well with a .22 can. I haven’t used it in a Steel Challenge match yet, but I have seen others use one.

Funny story at a Steel Challenge match last year, a guy in my squad had a G44. He starts at low ready, and the MD is next to me and says “what is he doing at low ready?” I said “that’s a .22.” MD says “no he’s got a Glock.” To which I reply again “yeah, but it’s a .22.” 🤣

Thats the third recommendation about this Glock by the way. If I can get a fiber optic sight for it, I will look into that. Looking at the website, does it have an adjustable sight? I t looks like its at least adjustable for windage.

[WobblyPossum]

Why would anyone buy a Taurus when you could buy a Glock?

The big draw for me is the thread barrel. For others it might be reportedly reliable 16-round magazines. All of that would be moot though if the gun actually sucks, which is why I was asking if anyone had experiences with it.

[farscott]

What do you guys know about the Taurus TX22? I haven’t seen any glaring negative reviews and it comes with a threaded barrel from the factory. I’m also in the market for a .22 pistol and have been debating between one of these and a G44.

My personal experience is limited, but a shooting buddy has one and has been very pleased with it. The original models had an issue with the barrel, but that has supposably been resolved. The only reason I do not have one is my Taurus experience has not been the best; as such, I am more inclined to try something else. Objectively I am probably missing out on a good pistol, but bad experiences tend to change behavior.

[Clusterfrack]

The big draw for me is the thread barrel. For others it might be reportedly reliable 16-round magazines. All of that would be moot though if the gun actually sucks, which is why I was asking if anyone had experiences with it.

I would say that any one or two people’s experience is irrelevant. The gun is made by Taurus, well known for unreliable centerfire guns. .22s are even more challenging to design, so that would be a hard pass for me.

[OlongJohnson]

What do you do to the Buckmark detail wise?

Everything.

Seriously, there really aren't any parts I don't check and touch. Mostly deburring and smoothing so they operate smoothly without wearing/destroying themselves prematurely. Shims on the trigger to get rid of the lateral slop. Set the firing pin length so it doesn't peen the breech. Knock down tool marks so the slide isn't a file on the aluminum frame. Fit the safety feature on the sear. Dress out roughness on the underside of the top strap where the firing pin housing rides. Clean up the crown if needed. They come out nicely. I might remember to take photos and do a writeup on the next one.

[Zincwarrior]

wow. Very impressive. Here's a man who doesn't joke around.

[Duelist]

Thats the third recommendation about this Glock by the way. If I can get a fiber optic sight for it, I will look into that. Looking at the website, does it have an adjustable sight? I t looks like its at least adjustable for windage.

Factory adjustable rear, and I put a standard Dawson fiber front on mine.

[Zincwarrior]

Factory adjustable rear, and I put a standard Dawson fiber front on mine.

Excellent. Dawson makes great sights. I will have to look at the Glock in the future.

[SecondsCount]

I would say that any one or two people’s experience is irrelevant. The gun is made by Taurus, well known for unreliable centerfire guns. .22s are even more challenging to design, so that would be a hard pass for me.

I'm not a Taurus fan, and don't own anything they make, but based on the reports I have heard from several TX22 owners, they are happy with their purchase. Taurus may have done this one right.

[trailrunner]

I had a Buckmark that was a complete jam-o-matic. Everyone else praises their reliability, but mine was a lemon. I think I sent it back to the factory for service (not sure), and maybe to a gunsmith to diagnose it (again, not sure), but I finally sold it out of frustration. Too bad, because I otherwise liked it.

The Buckmark had replaced a Ruger Mark something. That gun was absolutely reliable, but I didn't like taking it apart to clean it, so I sold it. After I sold the Buckmark, I bought another Ruger Mark something, and that also has been very reliable.

[farscott]

My wife likes her Buck Mark, but I am not a huge fan. The best things about the Buck Mark are the easily swappable (both mechanically and not the serialized firearm) barrels, easy takedown, and the aftermarket support. But the Buck Marks are essentially lower-cost versions of (in development order) the Colt Woodsman, Browning Challenger, Browning Challenger II, and Browning Challenger III. After shooting the Belgian Brownings, the Buck Mark is a tough pill to swallow.

The Ruger design, conversely, was always designed to need less skilled labor from its inception in the late 1940s and has a huge aftermarket. The changes Ruger has made to it have been primarily ergonomic, safety-driven, and assembly as it was reliable and durable from the beginning. I admit to a bias as a Standard was the pistol my father used to teach me shooting, but the aftermarket is so big for the Ruger for a reason. The Mark III moved the magazine release to the typical Browning location (but added the PITA loaded chamber indicator and magazine safety that so complicated field stripping and assembly), and the Mark IV essentially eliminated the big Buck Mark advantage of easy takedown and assembly as the Ruger is so simple. Make sure the hammer is cocked by cycling the bolt, engage the safety, push the button, and pivot the upper off of the lower. That is even simpler than the Buck Mark.

The reality is there are a lot of good rimfire pistols on the market. I would have no issues with many of them, including many out of production pistols like the Colt Woodsman variants Belgian Brownings, and the S&W 2206. But magazines for those out of production pistols are hard to find and pricey when found. I am modifying Beretta Neos magazines for usage in the Belgian Browning and Colt Woodmans variants. Optic mounting on the older guns is either difficult, unwieldy, or not a good idea. The Ruger magazines can be found in any gun store worthy of the name and a Mark IV magazine can be used in even the earliest Standard pistol. And optic mounting is a snap.

The big negative of the Mark III and Mark IV is the trigger and the magazine safety. Both can be addressed with a Volquartsen parts kit. The funny thing is my old Standard with the OEM parts has a great trigger, comparable to a tuned Volquartsen in the Mark IV.

If the takedown and assembly is not an issue, the older pistols can be found, at least before the latest panic, for under $300. I expect that will happen again once the current demand surge subsides. If anyone needs help taking one apart or putting it back together, please send me a PM. Once the tricks are known, it is fairly easy and takes no time.

[ArgentFix]

My Walther P22 5" once went over 2400 consecutive rounds of Mini-Mag #0030 without any stoppage, and is at least as reliable as my G44 and Ruger MkIV with other ammo. I hate shooting it though and secretly wish it would just die.

[Jim Watson]

My S&W Plastic M&P .22 Compact is 100% with MiniMags and after a few hundred rounds of break-in has shot nearly everything else reliably. But its dinky size, light weight, and tough trigger are against it.

If you want a real target pistol, a Ruger or Buckmark will be your best bet. Reports vary, you just have to hope you get a good one.

My M41 is reliable with good ammo; I am shooting my remaining Aquila SV in it, then it will be CCI SV. I have notes on other brands but that would not necessarily apply to a different gun.

My Nelson Conversion on my least used 1911 frame is likewise accurate and reliable with good ammo, CCI SV preferably but it is shooting Aquila HV well right now, while it lasts. BUT it has a peculiarity. It will feed, fire, and function but if you want to unload, the extractor may not pull the last round out of the genuine match tight throat chamber. I have had to "unload through the muzzle" a good bit.

[oregon45]

They're expensive, but a nice out of the box solution for a reliable, accurate .22 pistol are the Pardini and Walther GSP/SSP sport pistols designed for ISSF competition.

[Joe in PNG]

I went pizzagun, and got the Beretta 87 last year.

The only problems I've had was due to a box of ancient Winchester with bad primers.

[Outpost75]

Of current production the Rugers and Browning Buckmarks have the best potential, but I would not trade my 1942 High Standard Model B and 1940 Colt Woodsman Sport Model for a train load of them. Weakest point in all of the .22 autoloaders is magazines. Learn how to tweak and get the tools to adjust mags.

My Dad's Woodsman saw WW2 ETO service as a successful evader from France over the Pyrenees into Spain, and the High Standard Model B I inherited from a cousin saw WW2, Vietnam and Cold War service as well as real African and Alaska bush pilot survival ruck use. My advice is to find and obtain a very good “shooter-grade” Colt Woodsman or fine pre-war High Standard. A "full race Ruger" is much more bulky and less handy than "Target and Trapper" pistols of the 1930s and 40s, designed for the very backpack survival situations we talk about around the camp fire and plan for.

I have thoroughly tested my ca. 1942 Colt Sport 4-1/2" barrel hand-held on sandbags, indoors at 25 yards using the original iron sights, then compared results against similar samples fired with some borrowed modern and older .22 revolvers and auto pistols which were deemed by their owners as "good shooters."

Both Rugers were fired using a 4X Leupold pistol scope to do a better job of testing the pistols, rather than my ability see the sights! The High Standard Victor is a proven match gun used by a Master competitive shooter, intended as a benchmark. I shot it as well hand-held at 25 yards off handbags with my 59 year-old eyes as the gun will do at 50 yards with the same ammo off the Ransom rest. So, that is the measure of truth and reality!

The High Standard Model B is 1942 production with 6-3/4" barrel which was a retired bush pilot's actual Alaska survival gun. I shot some old ammo from the survival seat pack that used to ride in his DeHavilland Beaver float plane and some new stuff.

The Beretta 70S is the ca. 1968 "Jaguar" model which used to be imported into the US. This is the lightest 6" barrel .22 autoloader I have ever seen, weighing only 20 oz. These also came in 2-barrel sets with 3.5" and 6" barrels. They are difficult to shoot accurately, but are quality guns if you can find one.

Colt Officer's Model Match was made in 1959 and is a target grade revolver, a 6-shooter. In it I fired TWO cylinder loads, totaling 12 shots per group.

Walther P.22 was a current model, illustrates my disappointment with most current offerings of compact .22 pistols, being barely accurate enough for combat training on silhouette targets. As a kid I could shoot my Whamo slingshot more precisely than this!

Gun Bbl.Length Sights
Ammo Avg. ES(Ins.) 5x10@25yds*

1942 Colt Woodsman 4-1/2" irons
CCI Std. (USA) 1.5"
CCI Blazer (USA) 2.0"
Eley Std (UK) 1.25"

1942 High Standard Model B, 6/3/4" irons
"Sterile Package Brown Box" FMJ Ball M24 2.0"
Canuck (1965) HP 2.2"
CCI Blazer (USA) 1.85"
Eley Standard (UK) 1.5"

HS Victor 5-1/2" irons
Eley Std. (UK) 1.0"
Eley Sport (Mexico) 1.3"

HS Sentinel R107 revolver 4" irons
CCI Std. (USA) 2.6"*
Eley Std. (UK) 2.3"*
Eley Sport (Mexico) 2.3"*
CCI Blaser (USA) 2.3"*
Winchester Super-X (USA) 2.7*

HS Sentinel R103 revolver 6" irons
Eley Sport (Mexico) 2"*
CCI Blaser (USA) 2.2"*
Winchester Super-X (USA) 2.5"*

Ruger MkI 6-7/8" 4X Leupold
CCI Std. (USA) 1.5"
CCI Blazer (USA) 2"
Eley Sport (Mexico) 1.1"

Ruger Mk.III 5-1/2" 4X Leupold
Eley Std. (UK) 1.25"
Eley Sport (Mexico) 1.25"

Walther P22 3.5" irons
CCI Std. (USA) 4"
CCI Blazer (USA) 5"+

Beretta 70S 6" irons
Eley Std. (UK) 2"

Colt OM revolver 6" irons
Eley Std. (UK) 2" **
Eley Sport (Mexico) 2"**
CCI Blaser (USA) 2"**

Ive seen nothing in new offerings of current .22 handguns which would make me replace my WW2-era Colts or High Standards. If you search diligently you can still find a “shooter grade” Colt Woodsman, Huntsman or Challenger for around $600-700. A High Standard Model A, B, GB, D, H-B, or H-D in similar VG to Exc. condition will sell for $100-200 less than a similar Colt. The High Standard Model B uses the same magazines as a pre-war Colt Woodsman. It is similarly trim, light and accurate. High Standards in serviceable condition are quite common on GunBroker and are worth looking for to have shipped to your FFL dealer, if you are serious about finding a .22 pistol for your survival ruck.

Every vintage Colt or High Standard .22 auto pistol I've shot, if not abused, shoots just like these. A used High Standard costs $100 less than a new Ruger. A good used Colt also costs $100 less than buying the Ruger and having it ""tricked out" by a gunsmith. The classic trapper's .22 autos are sure handy in the ruck and worth EVERY penny!

Surprisingly, an inexpensive .22 revolver may shoot as well as an expensive one. If you can find one of the H&R Sportsman, High Standard Double-Nine or Sentinel 9-shot .22 revolvers, tight and in good mechanical condition, and cheap (less than $200) don't pass it up. You may be pleasantly surprised. Test fire it by cutting the corner out of a Kraft paper grocery bag, poke the muzzle out and fire a cylinder load through it double-action. Inspect the bag to see if any lead fragments cut holes when exiting the sides of the bag. If not, it's a keeper. Clean it well, and shoot GREASED or WAXED, UNPLATED ammo in it. Avoid plated, dry-lubed bullets in revolvers, because they lead up the forcing cone and cylinder throats, destroying accuracy.

Ordinary CCI Standard Velocity, the CCI High Velocity Small Game Bullet (SGB), CCI Subsonic Hollow-Point and Eley Sport are the best bang for the buck. Some batches of CCI Blazer shoot OK, but you need to test. The CCI Subsonic HP is the only standard velocity round I have found which expands reliably in my 4-1/2" Woodsman. Of the high velocity rounds the Winchester Power Point was best. Getting expansion from .22 revolvers is problematic because the cylinder gap reduces velocity and any cylinder misalignment causes asymmetrical scrubbing which accentuates initial yaw as the bullet leaves the muzzle.

In water-jug tests I have found that the same bullets which expand well from the 4-1/2" Woodsman do not from revolvers. In revolvers you are better off with solids. High velocity is OK if you can find a batch of unplated stuff that is accurate. I use the Hanned SGB die to clip the noses off to make flat points, which are more effective.

About 25 years ago I went through a succession of S&W .22 Kit Guns and K-22 revolvers. I didn't find any that would average consistently less than 2" at 25 yards hand held off handbags. A few were better than that on the Ransom Rest, but Dad's Woodsman put them all to shame when fired off sandbags.

So practice with your .22 handgun frequently from a field position, using the sights you've got. Use a Para cord lanyard to steady it unless you can get Mr. Wabbit to stay STILL while you settle the gun in your Ransom rest, yeah, right? 8-)

[vaspence]

Normal fodder for my rimfire pistols is CCI of some ilk (SV, Mini Mags, Stingers, etc). In my experience good ammunition goes a long way towards keeping a semiauto pistol reliable. Times being what they are you sort of have to buy it (any brand of .22) when you see it, so we do.

In normal times new semi auto break in for me is to shoot 50 - 100 mini mags through the pistol. If there aren’t any issues I’ll move to SV and if all is well we’ll stay with SV. We just did this with my kids new Walther Colt 1911-22 this week and after 100 mini mags it also ate most of the non CCI ammunition that was high velocity with few issues. I went straight to non CCI after the mini mags as these kids go through a surprising amount of .22 with anything magazine fed.

Of all of our .22s the Glock 44 we have goes with us on most range trips and is our garbage disposal for almost any miscellaneous .22 ammo. It is by far enjoyed by everyone and is shot more than any other firearm we own. I also replaced the front sight with a Dawson fiber.

[farscott]

Of current production the Rugers and Browning Buckmarks have the best potential, but I would not trade my 1942 High Standard Model B and 1940 Colt Woodsman Sport Model for a train load of them. Weakest point in all of the .22 autoloaders is magazines. Learn how to tweak and get the tools to adjust mags.

I happen to agree IF one has enough magazines and does not need optics. My preference is for more magazines rather than fewer. There is no good way to mount optics on these classic designs. The weak point of the classic designs is no parts have been made in decades with the last compatible magazines being the Colt Cadet units.

My biggest issue with these pistols is magazines; they are pricey when they can be found. I have been modifying Beretta Neos magazines to provide spares. Spare parts are also starting to become an issue. One can buy five magazines for the Ruger for the cost of one magazine for the classic designs. If a single magazine is sufficient and iron sights fit the bill, careful shopping for the classics will result in a great pistol. But the OP needs more than one, and the lack of parts support is an issue.

[Jim Watson]

I sure wish I had bought some of those Cadet magazines for my Woodsman. I would shoot it more if I had more than two.

Getting enough clips for my High Standard to shoot Steel Challenge (5) was expensive.

I don't know who makes magazines for Nelson but they are good quality even though plastic. Too bad they don't work in my Ace.

[BobM]

Does anyone have any experience with the S&W 41? I have a Ruger MkII and a couple 22/45 that have been excellent but I’ve long wanted a 41.

[spyderco monkey]

Having just received my .22 Victory back from S&W for the second time to fix problems with it, I once again have been thinking, what are the most reliable moderately priced .22 semi auto pistol on the market currently? By reliable I mean a pistol that will not jam, Fail to feed, or fail to extract, if it is properly maintained and cleaned (ie cleaned and oiled after every range session)?

Ever since I shot my old Ruger Mark II into the ground (shot it so much the barrel wore out and the frame cracked), I've not found a pistol I could rely on to shoot without quite a few jams. I have had great luck with non .22 pistols, but with .22s I have an inordinate number of unreliable ones. Once the prices get reasonable again, I'd like a decently reliable pistol for the range and just to have at steel challenge type matches (as a hack, not trying to actually be extremely competitive).

I found my Advantage Arms Glock .22 Conversion slide to be very reliable; far more reliable then a 10/22. Maybe 3-4 jams or failures to fire in a 525rd Federal Bulk pack box.

It worked well with pretty much any ammo as well, even the absolute shittiest Armscor .22 that was really filthy.

It was also quite easy to clean.

[BillSWPA]

I will add to those above discouraging guns that are not current production, unless they still have current factory support. I have a High Standard Sharpshooter with feed reliability issues which are beyond my ability to diagnose, and am not sure where I could send it for repair with confidence. Obtaining parts such as recoil springs is also an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc_Glock]

No experience with the Ruger Mark series.

My Glock 44 has been by far the least drama of any .22 I have tried including revolvers. 11 failures to fire in about 5500 rounds and a huge variety of ammunition. Half those were when I didn’t clean or lube it just to see when it would fail.

The G44 is also always a hit with other shooters when I take it to group activities. Everyone loves shooting it.

[OlongJohnson]

My wife likes her Buck Mark, but I am not a huge fan. The best things about the Buck Mark are the easily swappable (both mechanically and not the serialized firearm) barrels, easy takedown, and the aftermarket support. But the Buck Marks are essentially lower-cost versions of (in development order) the Colt Woodsman, Browning Challenger, Browning Challenger II, and Browning Challenger III. After shooting the Belgian Brownings, the Buck Mark is a tough pill to swallow.

I will admit to wishing I could get hold of a Buck Mark receiver and start my deburring and detailing before it was grit blasted and anodized. Seems like having the "rail" surfaces not grit blasted and coated with a material that's used to make sandpaper would be a good thing. And similarly, a roughed-in slide before it was finish machined. Would indeed be nice to have them machined to closer fits with smoother finishes. Something like a "custom shop" version of the gun with everything detailed and fitted properly.

[farscott]

I sure wish I had bought some of those Cadet magazines for my Woodsman. I would shoot it more if I had more than two.

Getting enough clips for my High Standard to shoot Steel Challenge (5) was expensive.

I don't know who makes magazines for Nelson but they are good quality even though plastic. Too bad they don't work in my Ace.

Bereta Neos magazines can be modified to function in the Woodsman. Depending if the pistol is 2nd Generation or not makes a difference. For the 2nd Generation, the follower button needs to be lowered so it fits in the magazine well, and a magazine catch notch needs to be cut. For the other guns, the follower button needs to be lowered and the rear portion of the plastic magazine base sanded to allow the magazine catch to lock into place.

[OlongJohnson]

I believe Neos magazines can also be modded to work with the Browning Challenger I and Nomad. There's a writeup somewhere on RFC.

[farscott]

I believe Neos magazines can also be modded to work with the Browning Challenger I and Nomad. There's a writeup somewhere on RFC.

They can. I have modified one. Basically lower the height of the follower button and remove some material from the rear of the baseplate to allow the latch to seat. I am trying to get the same magazine to work in my Belgian Browning and Colt Challenger/Huntsman pistols.

[revolvergeek]

From my personal shooting (excluding Rugers) Buckmarks (NOT the prior Browning models like the Challenger), the old S&W 422/622/2206, Beretta 70S and S&W M&P Compact are basically perfectly reliable and trouble free with decent-to-good quality ammo. I would love to pick up another vintage Micro Buckmark and Beretta 70S. Several people that have shot my M&P Compact 22 ended up buying one. It has become one of my main introduction to shooing guns the last couple years because it is light, easy to get hits with the easy to see sights, pretty good trigger, perfectly reliable with CCI SV or MiniMags and has a manual of arms like a heavier caliber automatic because of the full length slide. The older S&Ws are cool as a suppressor host because of the high line of sight relative to the bore. A 6" 422 with a decent little can and CCI Quiet Auto is like old spy move quiet and makes everybody that shoots it grin.

If you go the vintage S&W route I highly recommend that you get a barrel nut wrench from EWK Arms https://ewkarms.com/zen8/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6&products_id=9 . If the barrel nut at the muzzle isn't tight then accuracy goes first and then reliability next as it gets looser.

Never shot steel challenge, but I would probably look at one of the Buckmarks or one of the Ruger MkIV just because 1) they are very reliable and generally accurate and 2) there is a world of stuff that you can to to them if you decide to get serious about it at some point.

[revolvergeek]

I found my Advantage Arms Glock .22 Conversion slide to be very reliable; far more reliable then a 10/22. Maybe 3-4 jams or failures to fire in a 525rd Federal Bulk pack box.

It worked well with pretty much any ammo as well, even the absolute shittiest Armscor .22 that was really filthy.

It was also quite easy to clean.

Wow, I have had two AA kits, one G19 and one G26, and neither would come close to that level of functioning. We used to joke that they were even better trainers due to all the malfunction clearance practice. i still have the G19 but haven't shot it in several years.

[Duelist]

From my personal shooting (excluding Rugers) Buckmarks (NOT the prior Browning models like the Challenger), the old S&W 422/622/2206, Beretta 70S and S&W M&P Compact are basically perfectly reliable and trouble free with decent-to-good quality ammo. I would love to pick up another vintage Micro Buckmark and Beretta 70S. Several people that have shot my M&P Compact 22 ended up buying one. It has become one of my main introduction to shooing guns the last couple years because it is light, easy to get hits with the easy to see sights, pretty good trigger, perfectly reliable with CCI SV or MiniMags and has a manual of arms like a heavier caliber automatic because of the full length slide. The older S&Ws are cool as a suppressor host because of the high line of sight relative to the bore. A 6" 422 with a decent little can and CCI Quiet Auto is like old spy move quiet and makes everybody that shoots it grin.

If you go the vintage S&W route I highly recommend that you get a barrel nut wrench from EWK Arms https://ewkarms.com/zen8/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6&products_id=9 . If the barrel nut at the muzzle isn't tight then accuracy goes first and then reliability next as it gets looser.

Never shot steel challenge, but I would probably look at one of the Buckmarks or one of the Ruger MkIV just because 1) they are very reliable and generally accurate and 2) there is a world of stuff that you can to to them if you decide to get serious about it at some point.


Wow, I have had two AA kits, one G19 and one G26, and neither would come close to that level of functioning. We used to joke that they were even better trainers due to all the malfunction clearance practice. i still have the G19 but haven't shot it in several years.

I was always interested in the AA and other conversion kits for the GLOCKs, but hesitated due to the reputation for finicky reliability.

The G44 has been very reliable, at or above the reliability of all other .22s I’ve used, unless I use the ProMag I bought to see if it would work because 17 rounds instead of 10.

[JoeTom]

If you're not into Glock ergonomics and want a duty pistol facsimile, I really like my Walther PPQ .22lr. It's been reliable for me with Federal bulk pack as well as CCI, Winchester, Blazer, and Aguila standard velocity. It choked occasionally on the bulk pack stuff but it was really nasty, waxy, old ammo so hard to fault the gun for that. The barrel is factory threaded and Taylor Tactical Supply makes extensions that take the factory mags from 10 to 15rnds. The extensions haven't given me any issues.

Alternatively, if you are into DA/SA and have a Beretta 92, their .22 conversion kit has also been reliable for me and I even put a Burris FF3 on it to train red dot presentation. I thought the extra weight of the dot might be a problem for a .22, but that hasn't been the case so far.

[Zincwarrior]

If you're not into Glock ergonomics and want a duty pistol facsimile, I really like my Walther PPQ .22lr. It's been reliable for me with Federal bulk pack as well as CCI, Winchester, Blazer, and Aguila standard velocity. It choked occasionally on the bulk pack stuff but it was really nasty, waxy, old ammo so hard to fault the gun for that. The barrel is factory threaded and Taylor Tactical Supply makes extensions that take the factory mags from 10 to 15rnds. The extensions haven't given me any issues.

Alternatively, if you are into DA/SA and have a Beretta 92, their .22 conversion kit has also been reliable for me and I even put a Burris FF3 on it to train red dot presentation. I thought the extra weight of the dot might be a problem for a .22, but that hasn't been the case so far.

Excellent suggestions on non glock duty pistol options.

[Joe Mac]

Slightly less than 1000 rounds through my G44 thus far, with no malfunctions. I haven't cleaned it, but have kept it lubed and wiped off the feedramp a few times. It has only been fed 40gr Mini-Mags, as I work my way through a 5000-rd case.

[spyderco monkey]

Wow, I have had two AA kits, one G19 and one G26, and neither would come close to that level of functioning. We used to joke that they were even better trainers due to all the malfunction clearance practice. i still have the G19 but haven't shot it in several years.

Mine was for the G21 Gen 3, purchased ~15 years ago.

I had frequently heard complaints on reliability / ammo pickiness for AA, but mine has always been awesome.

Cleaned mine with baby wipes and a little CLP, so pretty minimal maintenance as well.

[gato naranja]

Not to negate anything I said earlier, but I probably should note that Ms. gata naranja's Ruger SR22 is only fed CCI Mini-Mags, and it is enviably reliable... right up to the point where firing residue starts sticking to things and building up. It takes a while, but it does happen. I laughed at - and roundly ridiculed - the thing when it came into the house, but with Mini-Mags, it has been a great little fun gun that is less fussy than lots of "better" .22 pistols.

In theory, I would avoid it like the plague, but I actually enjoy the hell out of it and appreciate the absolute lack of drama we have experienced with it.